Should the USAF take over incompetent NASA?

[trekkerguy]

btflash wrote:

---

what makes you think the air force can do it any better than nasa? it's the lack of funding that's the problem , not nasa.

Exactly.

NASA is fine, it's people are good and it's manned space programs have the right
goals which I am not sure they would have if it was a military run operation.

They just need better funding.

[Icemizer]

The real question is should NASA be running NASA?

[iguana_tonante]

While the OP may have some points, it's difficult to ignore the tone (and bad grammar). Chinaman? Eurobabble?

[Neopeius]

Squiggyfm wrote:

---

We were VERY reactionary back then. They launched then we launched. They launched a man into space then we did. They orbited then we did. They started looking at the moon then Kennedy said "Hey, we should go to the moon and do that other thing."

I don't think that's a fair characterization. They launched and then we launched. Absolutely true. We could have launched in 1956 but we chose to let the Soviets break that seal.

We almost beat them in the unmanned race to the moon. That was not reactive at all--the plans were laid down in November of '57.

As for orbiting, they beat us to it, but not because we waited for them to get there first but because our rockets weren't up to it.

And as for the moon, the Russians wanted to go there because Kennedy made it the American goal. And then, when the Russians lost the race, they pretended they'd never been in it.

You probably know all this anyway, but I thought it needed to be said.

[TheMasterOfOrion]

Anyways I see over 70% strong no vote, now see how people feel about the USAF taking over NASA

[Meredith]

Only if they actually have a stargate and a fleet of X-304 ships.

Otherwise, no, but they could take over some of the launching operations to reduce costs.

[Dusty Ayres]

Forbin wrote:

---

No, it's time for the civilian sector to take over. For example, a Mars mission for purely exploration purposes should be run by by a private organization such as the National Geographic Society, probably in financial association with several universities and private donors.

Then we wouldn't have to listen to whiners who think "we should solve our problems on Earth before we spend money go to other planets." If it's private money rather than gov't money, they'll have nothing to whine about.

Do you know how much money it would cost to go to Mars? It would take billions just to get the ship built, plus you have to use nuclear engines to propel it. Most universities are already coming under fire in the alternative press for doing research like this (due to the links that the military industrial complex has with the space program). What Americans need to do is start voting in a bloc to ensure funding of NASA, just like the religious right does. Then a mission to Mars will happen, as well as a mission to the moon and other planets.

[John Picard]

Dusty Ayres wrote:

---

Do you know how much money it would cost to go to Mars? It would take billions just to get the ship built, plus you have to use nuclear engines to propel it. Most universities are already coming under fire in the alternative press for doing research like this (due to the links that the military industrial complex has with the space program). What Americans need to do is start voting in a bloc to ensure funding of NASA, just like the religious right does. Then a mission to Mars will happen, as well as a mission to the moon and other planets.

Why do you say the propulsion system for a ship traveling to Mars has to be nuclear powered?

[Dusty Ayres]

John Picard wrote:

---

Why do you say the propulsion system for a ship traveling to Mars has to be nuclear powered?

Because in most likelihood, it will have to be a nuclear engine that gets us to Mars. Only nuclear engines have enough thrust power to get a ship there, and also, NASA had already developed a nuclear engine for just such a task, the NERVA, but budget cuts and Nixonian indifference killed its development. That project has to be started again, and carried to full completion this time, regardless of whatever anti-nuclear protests will happen. It's the only engine system capable of getting people to Mars in back in a few weeks, and it's that simple.

[Herbert]

Dusty Ayres wrote:

---

Because in most likelihood, it will have to be a nuclear engine that gets us to Mars. Only nuclear engines have enough thrust power to get a ship there, and also, NASA had already developed a nuclear engine for just such a task, the NERVA, but budget cuts and Nixonian indifference killed its development. That project has to be started again, and carried to full completion this time, regardless of whatever anti-nuclear protests will happen. It's the only engine system capable of getting people to Mars in back in a few weeks, and it's that simple.

I believe that in the current political climate, a NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application) engine is politically unacceptable. We're stuck with chemical propellants unless they can develop a Mach-Lorentz thruster, which is theoretical.

Another problem is that some in the scientific and space communities are opposed to manned spaceflight. They believe that sending fragile human beings to the Moon or Mars is much too costly and risky. It also takes funds away from robotic missions and they are skeptical how much science will be done during these missions.

Plus, like I said before NASA is doing a lousy job of selling "Project Constellation".

[Today]

How about the UESPA, I hear they're pretty good at this kind of stuff

[Maurice]

Are you kidding? After the Valient, Horizon, and Archon incidents, I wouldn't trust UESPA to move my furniture, let alone manage human spaceflight!

[John Picard]

Herbert wrote:

---

I believe that in the current political climate, a NERVA (Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application) engine is politically unacceptable. We're stuck with chemical propellants unless they can develop a Mach-Lorentz thruster, which is theoretical.

Another problem is that some in the scientific and space communities are opposed to manned spaceflight. They believe that sending fragile human beings to the Moon or Mars is much too costly and risky. It also takes funds away from robotic missions and they are skeptical how much science will be done during these missions.

Plus, like I said before NASA is doing a lousy job of selling "Project Constellation".

I believe Dusty is confused about using nuclear for space flight. It doesn't produce "thrust" in the same manner as a chemical rocket engine, but rather heat. We learned in high school physics class (1987) that a small amount of heat would be enough to "set things in motion" much like how an MMU uses small jets of air to propel a space walker. IIRC (without looking it up) the Pioneer spacecraft have a very tiny nuclear reactor that powers the entire craft with something in the neighborhood of 5 Watts and has been going since 1979(?).

One issue I see with a nuclear propeled vehicle is having a nuclear physicist on board to monitor and adjust the reactor as needed.

I agree with Herbert in that (IMHO) we're better off *JUST FOR NOW* in sending probes for the initial intel gathering and analysis.

[Herbert]

[quote=John Picard;2623455][quote=Herbert;2620075]

Dusty Ayres wrote:

---

I agree with Herbert in that (IMHO) we're better off *JUST FOR NOW* in sending probes for the initial intel gathering and analysis.

I just want to point out that I am not advocating unmanned probes or manned space missions. I was saying that there is disagreement at NASA and in the scientific community of how best to spend NASA's budget and what NASA's goals should be.

[yellowdingo]

btflash wrote:

---

what makes you think the air force can do it any better than nasa? it's the lack of funding that's the problem , not nasa.

I agree which is why I propose the Galactic Commonwealth borrows 5 billion-billion from the US government and hires NASA to send 10 million people one way to the moon in a 100 year window beginning in 2012, Terraform Mars as quick and dirty as possible then send 10 million colonists to Mars beginning 2115.
All the money gets spent employing people in the Space industry getting rapid growth to a Launch capacity of 50 payload/6 colonists per half hour.

No fancy cities or infrastructure sent. They simply live out of huge single stage Launch vehicles that serve as Lander and Habitat - after the first two years of food run out they will be expected to live off what they grow (hydroponics/fishfarm). Cities can be built by linking habs.

Expansion on the Moon will require Subterranean Mining to build an underground city for a billion, Mars will require a lot more.